Louis Sebert

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have already set out some of the reasons and our concerns about the "shall" rather than "may." I won't go into them in great depth. Again, no other jurisdiction in Canada has a mandatory securities requirement in equivalent legislation. I don't think we want to send the wrong message.

The bill we propose has a "may" rather than a "shall" to give the Minister the ability to require securities for the types of dispositions that have risk. Again, a mandatory securities requirement for all commercial and industrial dispositions would include any type of business, such as...

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Bill 46 contains provisions that broaden the existing securities authority in the Commissioner's Land Act. This means that securities may be required where risks are identified rather than limiting it to leases or specific categories, like commercial or industrial. Understand that no other jurisdiction in Canada has a mandatory securities requirement in equivalent legislation. Now, Bill 46 uses a "may" instead of "shall" to give the Minister the ability to require securities for the types of dispositions that have risk. A mandatory securities requirement for all...

You heard that committee did travel through several communities and also, too, there were a fair number of submissions made, I understand, from the report that we looked at very briefly earlier. As we proceed with changes, of course, if there changes to be made in the future, there will be consultation if there are changes to this act.

Engagement, yes. I'm sorry; I may have missed part of the question, Mr. Chair.

In a perfect world, Mr. Chair, I would be able to say yes to that. I just don't know if we have enough time, and that is the problem. There are not many days left. This is an important issue. We want to have a measured, sensible response, and I just don't think we have enough time for the sort of work that is required. Thank you.

As mentioned, MACA and Lands are working on a strategy, which, hopefully, will clarify to municipalities what they need to do to obtain land in the communities. As I say, it is now currently done on a case-by-case basis. I do understand the frustrations of some of the communities, including some of the larger ones.

I do not know whether I can make that commitment. I will get back to the Member, however, after speaking with the department. Thank you.

As I mentioned, the meeting was well attended. I am not in a position to answer the question of the Member opposite at this time, simply because I do not know.

Mr. Speaker, few services have as direct an impact on our citizens as the policing services provided by the RCMP. This modern relationship continues to develop, providing effective and collaborative policing services in our communities.

Over the past few years, the RCMP in the NWT have placed a deliberate focus on increasing public trust in policing services, working with partners to improve responses for vulnerable populations, and adapting their work to reflect changing legislation and best practices. This includes providing policing services that reflect community priorities and an...

It is rather difficult to predict the future. However, as I said, Lands and I expect MACA, also, is very well aware of the concerns of the municipalities, which we will take into account as we move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As a former municipal councillor, as is the Member opposite, I have been aware of this issue, which is an important issue in many of our communities. There is no overall policy to transfer all Commissioner's land in municipal boundaries to municipalities. Applications can be made by municipalities to obtain portions and parts of that land. I do realize it is an important issue. As I mentioned yesterday, MACA and Lands staff are currently finalizing a strategy on the process with the transfer of land assets specifically to community governments. We do recognize the...